State v. Jackson
220 N.C. App. 1
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Jackson was subject to a search of an apartment based on an affidavit for a search warrant led by an informant's tip.
- The warrant was executed; MDMA, cocaine, and cocaine base were seized; a taped statement from Jackson was obtained after Miranda rights were given.
- Jackson moved to suppress the evidence and sought informant identity; trial court denied suppression and later denied discovery.
- On direct appeal, this Court previously held no error in the judgments, but granted certiorari to review the APR ruling.
- The APR court summarily denied relief, prompting a remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine standing, informant reliability, and possible bad faith in the affidavit.
- This Court reversed, remanding to Wayne County Superior Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APR court properly denied an evidentiary hearing. | Jackson argues summary denial foreclosed needed inquiry. | State argues record shows no prejudice and matters can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing and further proceedings. |
| Whether Jackson had standing to challenge the apartment search. | Jackson had a reasonable expectation of privacy and lived at the apartment. | State contends insufficient showing of standing on record. | Defendant forecast adequate standing; summary denial improper. |
| Whether the search warrant affidavit contained false statements or was drafted in bad faith under Franks v. Delaware. | Affidavit included statements inconsistent with the informant's actual reliability. | Officer Harris lacked reliability and misrepresented informant's history. | Showings of falsity and possible bad faith warranted further inquiry; not amenable to summary denial. |
| Whether a properly redacted affidavit would have supported probable cause. | Redacted facts still establish probable cause. | Redacted version would not support probable cause due to missing reliability indicators. | Redaction would not sustain probable cause; prejudice shown. |
| Whether the discovery and APR issues were properly considered given trial court's handling. | Trial court did not properly develop the record on discovery and APR grounds. | Trial court's handling deprived full airing of issues and evidence. | Remand to develop record; not a final disposition on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (false statements in warrant affidavits invalidate warrants if material)
- State v. Riggs, 328 N.C. 213 (1991) (probable cause; totality of the circumstances; informant reliability factors)
- State v. Smothers, 108 N.C.App. 315 (1992) (redacted affidavits; sufficiency to support probable cause varies with corroboration)
- State v. Taylor, 191 N.C.App. 587 (2008) (substantial basis for probable cause; informant reliability considerations)
- State v. Fernandez, 346 N.C. 1 (1997) (probable cause standard; evidence-based review of affidavit sufficiency)
- State v. McHone, 348 N.C. 254 (1998) (evidentiary hearing when motion for APR presents fact questions)
- State v. Mckinney, 361 N.C. 53 (2006) (standing to challenge searches; privacy expectations)